The court further criticised the decisions made by the police and the magistrate during the trial.
The duo were earlier found guilty by a Magistrate Court in February 2023 for publishing a report that criticised Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited, located in Kwara State.
The 2018 report disclosed the company’s employees smoked Indian hemp openly on the property, in violation of applicable laws and health regulations.
A.S. Muhammad, the Trial Magistrate, found the journalists guilty of criminal conspiracy and defamation in his verdict.
The journalists were then given a two-month prison sentence with the possibility of a fine.
However, in an appeal filed by the journalists at the Kwaara state High Court, Yunus AbdulSalam, the journalists’ attorney, urged the appellate court to overturn the conviction from the lower court.
He contended that, among other things brought up during the trial, the trial magistrate disregarded the testimony of the journalists’ principal witness and their defence.
On 14 February, a panel of three judges, including Justice M.O Adegbite, Justice S.B Olanipekun, and Justice S.M Akanbi, delivered their verdict, stating that they encountered no challenges in favouring the appellants when resolving the matter.
“We find merit in the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence. We allow the appeal and enter a verdict of discharge and acquittal for the appellants,” said the presiding judge, Justice Akanbi.
Reacting to the outcome of the appeal, AbdulSalam described the decision of the court as a victory for his clients and press freedom in Nigeria.
Read Also:
“For nearly six years, these young journalists fought to reclaim their innocence and I’m happy that the appeal court delivered justice. This is a win for truth, press freedom and rule of law,” he said.
Meanwhile, in the 25-page judgement obtained by PRNigeria, the presiding judge took a swipe at the police and the trial magistrate over their roles in the conviction of the journalists.
“I think with all due respect to the learned magistrate, he came to conclusion after taking into consideration the prosecution’s investigation report which came out before the arrest and invitation of the Appellant.”
The judges stated that besides the fact that the evidence of the prosecution witness sharply contradicted the evidence tendered by the witness, the report coming out before the investigation leaves much to be desired.
They maintained that despite the contradiction in the evidence presented by the prosecution, the trial court took the narration of the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) hook line and sinker.
“The shoddy and shady investigation embarked upon by the police must have misled the trial magistrate court to its finding without regard to the evidence of the Appellants,” the judgement read.
“Investigation report came before an invitation of the Appellants to exhibit P6 and the defence of the DW1 were jettisoned for the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Every doubt ought to have been resolved in favour of the defence in criminal cases.”
The magistrate was overpowered by the prosecution’s witness testimony, the appellate judges added, and the defendants’ defense was not adequately considered.
“The defence of the Appellants ought to be considered. In other words, the principle of natural justice ought to be taken into consideration instead of the prosecution’s evidence alone.The learned trial judge got carried away with the confessional statement and PW2’s evidence without regard to the evidence of the defendants,” the judgement read.
They emphasised that a review of the available evidence revealed that the prosecution had not produced any evidence supporting the elements of section 392 of the penal code, upon which the magistrate had based his decision.
